Poor state of Test Cricket batting

[PhatBoy]

Spot on.
Ambrose very close thing but just misses my top ten.

See this is where your argument starts to lose a bit of credit imo.

You’ve got Garner in there, who was famously bouncy, accurate and tall, but generally not regarded as being as quick as his contemporaries (not slow I’d imagine, but not electric either). Ambrose was capable of extreme pace, AND did all the other things Garner did (bounce, accuracy etc) and could swing it.

 

[footyfan1978]

See this is where your argument starts to lose a bit of credit imo.

You’ve got Garner in there, who was famously bouncy, accurate and tall, but generally not regarded as being as quick as his contemporaries (not slow I’d imagine, but not electric either). Ambrose was capable of extreme pace, AND did all the other things Garner did (bounce, accuracy etc) and could swing it.

Sorry, totally disagree. Garner certainly quicker than Ambrose. Garner was not as quick as Holding in same side, but * me dead, no one but Thommo could bowl any quicker. Every one of Holding, Roberts, Garner and Marshall could bowl at express pace. Not just fast, express!!!
Seeing Ambrose, soon after was not slow, but certainly not as quick as those guys. Ambrose had angrier face than Garner, but do not let that fool you, he was quicker. No chance. He was an excellent bowler but he certainly no better than Garner. Garner does not lose his top ten ranking for me simply based on his three other bowlers of his own team being also in top 10. They were all that good. It is why beating West Indies when they had Holding, Roberts, Garner and Marshall together was nigh on impossible. Was really like climbing Mount Everest in cricket terms. Just to get even close to them was an amazing effort by any team.

 

[Park cricketer]

Yeah I always thought Ambrose would find a place in top 5 fast bowlers ever post 70s in most people's list.

He didn't play much in Asia but so did Lillee.

My top 5 would be:

Marshall
McGrath
Ambrose
Hadlee
Steyn/Imran

in no particular order.

 

[PhatBoy]

Yeah I always thought Ambrose would find a place in top 5 fast bowlers ever post 70s in most people's list.

He didn't play much in Asia but so did Lillee.

My top 5 would be:

Marshall
McGrath
Ambrose
Hadlee
Steyn/Imran

in no particular order.

Mine would be very similar . Steyn, Marshall, Lillee and Ambrose would probably be mine but I’d have no issue with any of the other being in and around it

 

[Wedge McManus]

I wonder how many keyboards have been smashed by posters on big footy during debates over who the best bowlers/batsmen of all time are? Lol Posters will argue over everything here. I'll bet a serious argument could be made for which batsman had the biggest box!!

 

[footyfan1978]

I wonder how many keyboards have been smashed by posters on big footy during debates over who the best bowlers/batsmen of all time are? Lol Posters will argue over everything here. I'll bet a serious argument could be made for which batsman had the biggest box!!

The guy from Bermuda and yes, Steyn also very close to my top ten pace bowlers. Feel he very stiff. Actually enjoy watching Steyn bowl more than McGrath but Pigeon in end just more effective. Steyn has lovely bowling action. Sort of a cross between Liillee, Hadlee and Donald.

 

[PhatBoy]

I wonder how many keyboards have been smashed by posters on big footy during debates over who the best bowlers/batsmen of all time are? Lol Posters will argue over everything here. I'll bet a serious argument could be made for which batsman had the biggest box!!

Trust me this is much more good natured than some of the footy arguments. With cricket there is a general code amongst most that we are all cricket lovers first. The same doesn’t apply in footy

 

[Wedge McManus]

The guy from Bermuda and yes, Steyn also very close to my top ten pace bowlers. Feel he very stiff. Actually enjoy watching Steyn bowl more than McGrath but Pigeon in end just more effective. Steyn has lovely bowling action. Sort of a cross between Liillee, Hadlee and Donald.

He's a skiddy bowler too so he's always at you with his bouncers. They don't sail over your head they smack you straight in the helmet

 

[Wedge McManus]

Trust me this is much more good natured than some of the footy arguments. With cricket there is a general code amongst most that we are all cricket lovers first. The same doesn’t apply in footy

Oh absolutely. I wasn't having a go at all and I recognise you are a polite and well spoken poster. My point was there is literally nothing you will say in a cricket forum that some bloke won't take umbrage with. Deadset there will be someone out there who will argue till he's exhausted that Chris Martin was not the worst international batsman in history

 

[PhatBoy]

The guy from Bermuda and yes, Steyn also very close to my top ten pace bowlers. Feel he very stiff. Actually enjoy watching Steyn bowl more than McGrath but Pigeon in end just more effective. Steyn has lovely bowling action. Sort of a cross between Liillee, Hadlee and Donald.

See that’s the sort of thing we differ on.
This is putting my anti-Aus bias aside for a moment as I agree McGrath was a truly magnificent bowler.

And at least with this one, we’ve both watched both bowlers’ entire careers.

Bowlers are primarily judged on average and strike rate. Their average is quite similar, McGrath has a slight edge. 21.6 to 22.8

Steyn however has a strike rate of 42.2 to McGrath’s 51.9. That’s not a small gap.

Obviously McGrath gives more control, that’s a given. But I would wager most, if not all captains would sacrifice some economy from one bowler, to have someone that averages a wicket every seven overs.

If you want to bowl a side out, no matter the conditions (Steyn’s Asian record is wonderfully well documented - though McGrath himself was no slouch there) and can toss the ball to someone, I can’t see an argument that favours McGrath.

 

[PhatBoy]

Oh absolutely. I wasn't having a go at all and I recognise you are a polite and well spoken poster. My point was there is literally nothing you will say in a cricket forum that some bloke won't take umbrage with. Deadset there will be someone out there who will argue till he's exhausted that Chris Martin was not the worst international batsman in history

Absolutely (thanks by the way), I just tend to think that every discussion or argument in here is mind blowingly respectful in comparison to some of the shitfests in the footy threads.

I think with cricket compared to footy there’s so much more statistical basis for discussion. Footy people tend to argue a lot on what they see (ironic that I bring this up given that FootyFan is using it, as is his right, to support his point of view) rather than what the numbers say.

 

[Wedge McManus]

Absolutely (thanks by the way), I just tend to think that every discussion or argument in here is mind blowingly respectful in comparison to some of the shitfests in the footy threads.

I think with cricket compared to footy there’s so much more statistical basis for discussion. Footy people tend to argue a lot on what they see (ironic that I bring this up given that FootyFan is using it, as is his right, to support his point of view) rather than what the numbers say.

Imho cricket is a much more intellectual, cerebral and tactical game that requires skill, concentration, focus with resolve and a determination to push through barriers...rather than say...a sport where big gorilla-like men chase a ball and try and get it through some sticks in the ground.....

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

I appreciate you got a different perspective but ultimately you can only really compare when you actually see players play against others. Your commercial pitches phrase is weird. You do realise World Series Cricket developed their own pitches. Everything World Series Cricket was as commercial as it can get as far as cricket goes. The perspective of imaging rather than seeing is not one you can make definite conclusions. You can clearly get a much better perspective of period you actually watch players play. If all you got is imagination and stats without context of players and conditions of the time it is very easy to imagine any conclusion. I can imagine all I like about Bradman era, or Frank Tyson era of Garfield Sobers era, but unless I actually saw it, I cannot draw strong conclusions. But I do listen to people that played and saw those eras up to eras I viewing and I value what they say at time. Hence if Richie Benaud was giving me an insight into brilliance of certain players from different eras it was only guide as to what went before. But if I just left to my own imagination , could come to any conclusion.

The 70s and into early 80s when I was a kid and started watching cricket, saw some terrific batsmen as well as some excellent bowlers in medium, fast and not forgetting the spinners with Underwood, the Indian trio and Mallett, Gibbs.

Remember on of first series I saw was ‘76 Windies tour which thanks to Lillee, Thommo and Walker we won 4-1.
But Windies had an terrific batting lineup with Fredericks, Greenidge, Richards, Lloyd, Kallicharran and Rowe. Just exceptional.

Kiwis had Reid, Turner and Crowe a little later. Pakis had Zaheer, Majid Khan, Javed. Poms Boycott, Amiss and Edrich and a young Gower. India with Gavaskar, Armanath, Vengsarkar and Viswanath.

Tremendous batting talent. World Series really showed off this type of talent and depth of bowling.

Shield cricket then and into 80s and 90s was at much higher level. Without the distraction of 20/20 batsmen had time to hone skills. Some great players of spin as well. Last few definitely seen decline in footwork against spinners.

 

[Damon_3388]

Trust me this is much more good natured than some of the footy arguments. With cricket there is a general code amongst most that we are all cricket lovers first. The same doesn’t apply in footy

Not quite the same one-eyed team allegiances/biases in cricket as there is in footy.

 

[Damon_3388]

See that’s the sort of thing we differ on.
This is putting my anti-Aus bias aside for a moment as I agree McGrath was a truly magnificent bowler.

And at least with this one, we’ve both watched both bowlers’ entire careers.

Bowlers are primarily judged on average and strike rate. Their average is quite similar, McGrath has a slight edge. 21.6 to 22.8

Steyn however has a strike rate of 42.2 to McGrath’s 51.9. That’s not a small gap.

Obviously McGrath gives more control, that’s a given. But I would wager most, if not all captains would sacrifice some economy from one bowler, to have someone that averages a wicket every seven overs.

If you want to bowl a side out, no matter the conditions (Steyn’s Asian record is wonderfully well documented - though McGrath himself was no slouch there) and can toss the ball to someone, I can’t see an argument that favours McGrath.

To expand on this point, what would you rather, in terms of having enough time to chase a total and managing a bowler's workload and being out in the field for hours?:

Steyn's strike rate and economy rate - Opposition all out for 228 in 70.2 overs

McGrath's strike rate and economy rate - Opposition all out for 216 in 86.4 overs

Is giving up 12 extra runs a fair trade-off for 16 less overs of toil for the bowlers and others standing around in the field? IMO, it is.

In general, I feel people somewhat overrate economy ahead of strike rate, and don't really realise that there's not that much difference between, say, 2.95 runs per over vs. 3.15 overall (an extra 1 run per five overs). For me, strike rate is the #1 measurement. Obviously, if the economy isn't that great (anything above 3.5 an over needs to come down), and the strike rate isn't good either (anything above 60 is trending towards mediocre IMO), then they're probably just not that good a bowler, but I favour strike rate ahead of economy every time.

And that's what makes it hard for me to rate some past bowlers (particularly spinners), like Sobers (91.91 strike rate), Lance Gibbs (87.75), Bedi (80.32), Underwood (73.61), and even Kumble (65.99) to an extent, as highly as others do. Sure, they played in a different time, and they could produce eye-wateringly low economy, and did rip through sides on occasion, but their strike rates in isolation were pretty pedestrian, and their wicket totals were for the most part the product of bowling overs in bulk. Without the "assistance" of the pitches they played on, to help keep the run rates down, would they be considered impotent, pedestrian bowlers in 2019?

 

[gbatman]

Our domestic competition needs to be overhauled.

Big bash doesn't need to go any longer or need any more teams otherwise it will implode and people will lose interest... if they aren't already. The big bash needs to focus on quality and not quantity. Less games no more teams and big name players playing is what people will go to see.

One day cricket is a good format for developing aggressive long format style batting which is traditionally how the Australians have played test cricket. One day cricket batting technique and mindset is much the same as 4 day and test cricket except it's more aggressive so the ODD competition is important for the 4 day and test competition.

Sheffield shield should be the first cricket the players play, it should be a longer season and go all the way up to the big bash. The shield should continue on and finish after the big bash as it does. Then the one day competition should begin, the only problem with this is that it's creeping into footy season and ovals may begin to be taken over by football but it would be good to see a winter ODD competition played in the north of the country. Bring cricket to the NT and north QLD etc.

Either way the problem is that there is not enough 4 day cricket being played and the ODD competition is a joke, played on small grounds over such a short period where mug bats can score easy runs. Players probably don't get enough time to prepare for the longer format then jump straight from one to the other.

We just need to get our players playing more serious shield and one day cricket. One day cricket is really good for 4 day and test cricket because it requires good traditional cricket footwork whereas T20 cricket has its own unique technique.

Would seriously look into playing the domestic one dayers through the autumn/winter or perhaps early spring in the north of the country so that it's more of a serious competition. Ground and player availability needs to be looked into though.

Coaching needs looking at too. These big bash stars like Short and Lynn who we tried to turn into ODI players have glaring mindset/technique issues which any half decent coach should be able to fix. It's basic stuff and I think because they score runs in the ODD comp the coaches don't bother. I don't know what's going on but coaching seems to be lacking.

The thing is, the talented cricketers who need to work on a few things to get a crack in the Australian team aren't, they are sitting in the big bash "hitting dingers" and letting their pure cricket technique deteriorate instead of working on their game and making 1000 runs in the shield etc.

 

[footyfan1978]

The 70s and into early 80s when I was a kid and started watching cricket, saw some terrific batsmen as well as some excellent bowlers in medium, fast and not forgetting the spinners with Underwood, the Indian trio and Mallett, Gibbs.

Remember on of first series I saw was ‘76 Windies tour which thanks to Lillee, Thommo and Walker we won 4-1.
But Windies had an terrific batting lineup with Fredericks, Greenidge, Richards, Lloyd, Kallicharran and Rowe. Just exceptional.

Kiwis had Reid, Turner and Crowe a little later. Pakis had Zaheer, Majid Khan, Javed. Poms Boycott, Amiss and Edrich and a young Gower. India with Gavaskar, Armanath, Vengsarkar and Viswanath.

Tremendous batting talent. World Series really showed off this type of talent and depth of bowling.

Shield cricket then and into 80s and 90s was at much higher level. Without the distraction of 20/20 batsmen had time to hone skills. Some great players of spin as well. Last few definitely seen decline in footwork against spinners.

You are one lucky man. You've seen quite a bit earlier than me. Seen highlights of 76 and boggles the mind we beat Windies back then 4-1, but also highlights to me how incredible Lillee and Thommo must have been together in their prime. Thommo was nowhere near as good as Lillee when I watched but knew before his shoulder injuries he was much better than early 80's version I saw and way quicker. Would pay anything to be in time machine and see him bowl in mid 70's. Lance Gibbs before my time. Never seen him. Mallett was some old bastard that might have saw in one Test before he retired. Think he may have played in first summer after World Series Cricket ended. I got no idea if he was any good. Ian Chapell rated him a bit. Also did not see much of Indian spinners as when they were in Australia in summer of 77-78 I was only watching World Series Cricket on channel 9. But heard Bishen Bedi and some other guy quite good but hard to really know as they bowled to such a weak second rate Australian line-up. Kiwis always seemed to have about 3 decent batsmen but I always classed playing Inida or Kiwis back then as second tier. Windies were mount everest and Pakistan were talented but was clear cut Australia were clear 2nd best to Windies and England was our more historical rival. Majid Khan, Zaheer Abas and Asif Iqbal all quite good for Pakis back then but really Javed Miandad was one with a bit of fire. Abdul Quadir was really first leg spinner that excited I saw. Derak Underwood was probably best spinner I seen but an odd one back then. Bowled quick for a spinner. Bruce Yardley best I seen in eighties. Then when Warne, MacGill and others turned up the golden era of spinners have arrived.

As for late 70's bats, don't think it was anything special except Viv and Greg Chappell. Plenty of other good batsmen like Martin Crowe, Gordon Greenidge, David Gower, Javed Miandad and Allan Border. Vengsarkar and Gavasker best of India bats. India have improved every area of their cricket in last 20 years. They really were pretty irrelevant as a Test side until Tendulkar came along. They now play like a nation that has a pool of a billion people to find talent.

The only thing I think is poor of Test match batting is plenty of bats in top 6 have lost art to bat for more than 2 or 3 hours and prone to make mistakes mentally in shot selection. I think it is direct result of over abundance of short form cricket creating bad habits. But on flipside guys batting 7 to 11 now seem to be far more capable of batting longer than guys of late 70's or early 80's I saw. * at times, Lillee was batting 8, Cummins is so much better as a bat at 8 now and even our number 10's are way better.. When we had a tail of someone like Lillee, Alderman, Hogg and someone like Higgs as spinner it was scary bad tail. 6 down all out....

 

[10Dulkar]

The only thing I think is poor of Test match batting is plenty of bats in top 6 have lost art to bat for more than 2 or 3 hours and prone to make mistakes mentally in shot selection. I think it is direct result of over abundance of short form cricket creating bad habits. But on flipside guys batting 7 to 11 now seem to be far more capable of batting longer than guys of late 70's or early 80's I saw. **** at times, Lillee was batting 8, Cummins is so much better as a bat at 8 now and even our number 10's are way better.. When we had a tail of someone like Lillee, Alderman, Hogg and someone like Higgs as spinner is was scary bad tail. 6 down all out....

It reminds me of the infamous test when England's tail was something like Giddins, Mullally, Tufnell and Fraser!

 

[archibald]

Oh absolutely. I wasn't having a go at all and I recognise you are a polite and well spoken poster. My point was there is literally nothing you will say in a cricket forum that some bloke won't take umbrage with. Deadset there will be someone out there who will argue till he's exhausted that Chris Martin was not the worst international batsman in history

I’m personally offended by this as Phil Tuffnel was clearly shitter

 

[footyfan1978]

I’m personally offended by this as Phil Tuffnel was clearly shitter

* off. Danny Morrison has him covered.

 

[PhatBoy]

**** off. Danny Morrison has him covered.

The Phantom ftw

 

[footyfan1978]

In any fight for worst Test batsmen ever, Jimmy Higgs deserves a run. Thought I would have a quick google search for a reminder of how bad he looked holding a bat.
ha ha....

 

[frenchcutforsix]

Imho cricket is a much more intellectual, cerebral and tactical game that requires skill, concentration, focus with resolve and a determination to push through barriers...rather than say...a sport where big gorilla-like men chase a ball and try and get it through some sticks in the ground.....

Could be argued that top level rugby and footy actually requires some brains. I'm pretty sure Richie McCaw got the highest marks in NZ for calculus in his final year at high school. But generally speaking I tend to agree cricketers come across as more intelligent than footy players.

 

[frenchcutforsix]

Pollock was very quick as a young bowler.

Wasn't his dad a great bowler too apparently? And his uncle apparently was still timing it well deep into his fifties. Great genetics there

 

[frenchcutforsix]

In any fight for worst Test batsmen ever, Jimmy Higgs deserves a run. Thought I would have a quick google search for a reminder of how bad he looked holding a bat.
ha ha....

What kind of umpiring is that? Lance cairns was the same speed as Mike hussey lol